Legal team takes fight over government’s campaign against pro-life center to next level
With a warning that America’s First Amendment actually could be at risk because of one state’s ideological demands, a legal team at the American Center for Law and Justice is taking a fight against Massachusetts to the next level.
It is because of the state’s concerted campaign to attack pro-life Pregnancy Resource Centers, like Your Options Medical.
A lower court dismissed the dispute, but a report from the ACLJ warns that’s a threat.
“If the government can publicly brand a religious ministry ‘dangerous,’ encourage complaints against it, and trigger investigations – all while claiming it’s just ‘expressing a view’ – then the First Amendment is in serious jeopardy,” the organization reported.
It was a judge at the entry level to the federal court system that just days ago dismissed the ACLJ’s lawsuit challenging the state’s campaign.
“Your Options Medical is a licensed medical clinic that has served women facing unexpected pregnancies for more than two decades. It provides free ultrasounds, counseling, and material support – and it does so because of a deeply held belief that every human life is sacred,” the ACLJ reported.
But after the Dobbs decision from the Supreme Court, “Massachusetts officials launched what they called a ‘first-in-the-nation’ public education campaign targeting Pregnancy Resource Centers. State messaging labeled these centers ‘dangerous’ and ‘threats to public health,’ accused them of deception, and urged the public to avoid them. Government webpages directed complaints to state authorities and linked to advocacy resources designed to shut these centers down.”
It soon was found that a team of agitators in support of the abortion industry worked with government officials there to make accusations and file complaints.
The lawsuit came about because “the Constitution does not permit government officials to use their regulatory power to silence or punish speech they disagree with – especially religious speech,” the ACLJ said.
The lower court claimed state officials and pro-abortion agitators were simply “expressing their views,” even though that’s not what happened.
It actually was a “coordinated” campaign that included “public education, the regulatory guidance, the solicitation of complaints, the state-funded advocacy partnership, and the investigations triggered by those complaints.”
Over all the damage was the supervision of state officials who “publicly branded pregnancy centers as dangerous, directed the public to report them, partnered with an advocacy organization to amplify that message, and backed it all with regulatory authority,” the ACLJ reported.
The facts, the ACLJ reported, “describe a government-driven effort to stigmatize and silence disfavored speech” in violation of the First Amendment.
The report said of the case that is being appealed, “The Constitution does not allow government officials to chill speech through intimidation and regulatory pressure. It does not permit viewpoint discrimination disguised as public health messaging. And it does not allow the targeting of religious ministries because of their beliefs.”